—
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Ritick Paul vs Smt. Lohari Roy on 28 February, 2024
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
February 28, 2024
Sl. No.6
Court No.19
s.biswas
CO 527 of 2024
Sri Ritick Paul
vs.
Smt. Lohari Roy
Mr. Surya Prasad Chattopadhyay
Mr. Arjun Samanta
Mr. Ankit Chatterjee
… for the petitioner
Mr. Tanmoy Sarkar
Mr. Mukteshwar Maity
Mr. Rashin Singh
Mr. Diptiman Pal
… for the opposite party/wife
The petitioner/husband has challenged an
order passed by the learned Additional District
Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Barasat, North 24
Parganas, dated August 4, 2023 in Misc. Case
No.115 of 2023 arising out of Matrimonial Suit
No.1415 of 2019, on the following grounds:
a) The order was an ex parte order;
b) The petitioner was already paying
Rs.15,000/- as maintenance as per the
dirction of the learned CJM, Bankura,
c) The petitioner/husband’s income was not
taken into consideration,
d) The order was passed without complying
with the basic parameters laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of
Rajnesh vs. Neha Another reported in
2020 SCC Online SC 903.
2
The learned advocate for the
petitioner/husband submits that an amount of
Rs.15,000/- which was being paid in terms of the
order of the learned CJM, Bankura, was not taken
into account by the learned court and the other
parameters which were required to be considered in
order to arrive at the quantum of maintenance
pendente lite, was not considered. Moreover, the
husband was not allowed to contest the proceeding
and the order was passed ex parte.
Learned advocate for the wife submits that the
husband was aware of the proceeding. The
maintenance which was awarded in the proceeding
under Section 125 of The Criminal Procedure Code,
was only in favour of the child and not the wife. The
petitioner is not complying with the order of the
learned CJM. The petitioner has filed an application
for withdrawal of the matrimonial suit for non-
prosecution after the order of maintenance pendente
lite has been passed.
This court finds that the said fact and the
application for withdrawal of the suit has not been
informed to this court by the petitioner. The learned
advocate for the petitioner submits that he was not
properly instructed.
However, be that as it may, this court is of the
view that a resolution through mediation can be
3
explored. The husband filed the application for
restitution of conjugal rights and the wife is not
completely unwilling to go back to the husband.
Stay of all further proceedings in Matrimonial
Suit No.1415 of 2019. The order impugned shall also
remain stayed. The registry is directed to
communicate this order and send the records to the
Secretary, Mediation Centre, High Court at Calcutta,
for appointment of a learned trained mediator for
resolution of dispute between the parties. In the
meantime, the money as directed for the
maintenance for the child of Rs.15,000/- by the
CJM, Bankura shall be paid and as lumpsum
amount towards maintenance of the wife of Rs.1
lakh shall be paid within March 31, 2024.
A compliance of this order by the husband,
shall be filed before the learned mediator. The
learned mediator will issue notice upon the parties,
upon receipt of records and proceed with the matter.
A report shall be filed by the learned Mediator within
August 31, 2024. Upon receipt of the report, the
registry will place the matter before this court.
The mater will appear on September 9, 2024.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
